Nature 'With Editor': What the Handling-Editor Screen Means

Nature operates the full-time professional editor model, and the "With Editor" stage is where that model does its heaviest work. A Nature handling editor is not a working academic fitting journal work around a lab; the handling editor is a full-time professional who transitioned from research to editorial work.

The handling editor reads the entire paper and evaluates broad-significance, scientific rigor, and Nature-family routing before deciding whether any referee is invited.

Nature's first stage is the handling editor deciding whether to send the manuscript for peer review; the editor may seek informal advice from scientific advisors and editorial colleagues before making that screen decision.

Nature editorial culture is decisive at the screen: most submissions are declined before peer review, and clear non-fit decisions usually arrive quickly. Papers that clear the handling editor have passed the steepest filter in life-science publishing, and the decision then shifts from "is this broad enough" to "is the science correct."

The durations in this table are Manusights planning estimates. Nature publishes a median of 8 days to first editorial decision and 321 days to acceptance (2025), not per-status durations.

"With Editor" is the stage where most non-fit manuscripts are declined before any referee is involved. The handling editor evaluates whether the broad-significance warrants one of Nature's selective editorial slots.

A desk rejection at this screen most often means the editor concluded the work would fit better at a sister Nature Portfolio title (Nature Communications for broader scope, Nature Methods for methodology, Nature Medicine for clinical translation, Nature Genetics for genetics) or that the broad-significance bar is not met.

None of this is a referee judgment; it is the editor reading the abstract, introduction, and first figure and asking what changed because of this work for an interdisciplinary readership.

Before the paper reaches the handling editor, Springer Nature's author support page describes an initial quality check that includes checks on authorship, competing interests, ethics approval and plagiarism.

This is the core of the "With Editor" stage. The handling editor reads the paper and evaluates broad-significance, scientific rigor, and Nature-family routing. The editor may seek informal advice from scientific advisors and editorial colleagues before deciding. Nature says authors are usually informed within a week if the paper is not being considered, and its median to a first editorial decision is 8 days (2025). Nature publishes no separate window for complex cases.

Nature says the assigned editor seeks informal advice from scientific advisors and editorial colleagues, and consults editors handling submissions in related fields when choosing referees. Nature does not publish how long this takes.

The "With Editor" stage ends the moment the handling editor either returns the paper (desk reject), recommends a Nature-family transfer, or moves it to reviewer assignment. The portal label changing from "With Editor" to a reviewer-assignment or "Under Review" state is the single clearest signal that your paper cleared the desk screen and the editorial-screening phase is complete.

• Return within about a week: Nature says authors are usually informed within a week if the paper is not being considered, so this is the usual window for a decision not to send the paper out.

• Return within 7 to 21 days: Still possible as an editor decision before peer review; Nature publishes no breakdown of when rejections occur.

• Still With Editor at 3 to 4 weeks: Longer than the usual one-week window for a decision not to consider the paper; Nature publishes no threshold, and this alone is not a reject signal.

• Still With Editor past 6 weeks: A polite inquiry via the Manuscript Tracking System is appropriate; the screen may have stalled in discussion.

• Status moves to Reviewers Assigned / Under Review: Screen passed. Your paper cleared the steepest filter in life-science publishing.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Nature authors during the editorial-screening window. The honest answer: no, 2 weeks is past the usual one-week window for a decision not to consider the paper, but Nature publishes no threshold and it is not on its own a reject signal.

One possible explanation is that the handling editor sought informal advice from scientific advisors or editorial colleagues, which Nature says editors do. That is not by itself a sign of a pending desk reject.

What you should NOT do during the first 6 weeks at "With Editor" is email the editorial office. An inquiry mid-screen is unlikely to accelerate the decision, and Nature publishes no minimum waiting period. If the status still reads "With Editor" past 6 weeks, a single polite one-line inquiry referencing the manuscript ID is reasonable.

If your Nature paper is returned at the "With Editor" screen rather than sent to referees, the cascade depends on what the handling editor cited:

Nature Communications is the most natural Springer Nature cascade because Nature Portfolio supports manuscript transfer with any reviewer reports preserved; at the screen stage, transfer happens before reports exist, but the editorial assessment travels. Nature Communications has a broader scope than Nature.

Specialty Nature titles (Nature Methods, Nature Medicine, Nature Genetics, Nature Neuroscience) are natural cascades where the work fits a specialty editorial scope.

Communications journals (Communications Biology, Communications Medicine) are the Nature Portfolio open-access cascade for broad-significance work where the open-access model fits.

Science / Cell are external cascades for top-tier general-science work. These journals operate independently from Springer Nature; assessments do not transfer.

No referee has yet weighed in at this point; "With Editor" is a handling-editor desk screen. Nature says the criteria for sending a paper for peer review are that the results seem novel and arresting (illuminating, unexpected or surprising) and that the work has both immediate and far-reaching implications, and that this initial judgement is not a reflection on technical validity. The table maps related points to what you can confirm while you wait.

Across Nature manuscripts, three named patterns generate the most consistent editorial-screen concerns and the most common reasons a paper is returned at the "With Editor" stage before any referee is invited. The practical question during the screen is whether the abstract, introduction, main figures, Methods, Reporting Summary, Data Availability Statement, Supplementary Information, and cover letter already make the broad-significance claim auditable. Nature's public guidance explains the process; the Manusights layer is the manuscript-level pattern, what a waiting author can strengthen before the handling editor decides.

Nature narrow-significance framing in the abstract and introduction. In Nature manuscripts, the abstract and first two introduction paragraphs sometimes prove importance to a subfield but not to an interdisciplinary readership. The Methods and figures may be strong, yet the manuscript still reads like a specialty Nature title because the screen does not see the broader principle, mechanism, or dataset consequence.

During the "With Editor" wait, check whether the title, abstract, first figure, and final introduction paragraph all point to the same Nature-level claim. If only the cover letter makes the broad-significance argument, the screen package is fragile because the cover letter is not what the handling editor weighs most heavily.

Check whether your Nature abstract clears the screen→

Nature reporting-summary and methods gaps that surface the moment referees are assigned. In Nature manuscripts, ARRIVE, CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, data-availability, code-availability, image-integrity, and statistical-reporting details often become referee requests even when the editor likes the question at the screen. The weak point is rarely an ignored checklist name.

It is that the Methods, Reporting Summary, figure legends, source data, statistical analysis, sample-size rationale, and randomization or blinding statement do not let a technical referee verify the claim quickly. If the manuscript is With Editor, use the wait to prepare exact manuscript-location answers for these components so the paper is ready the moment the screen passes.

Check whether your Nature methods package is review-ready→

Nature-family transfer logic that ends the screen in a redirect. In Nature manuscripts, a rigorous paper may receive a transfer recommendation to Nature Communications, Nature Medicine, Nature Methods, Nature Genetics, or another specialty title if the handling editor concludes at the screen that the result is strong but not broad enough for Nature. Authors lose time when they treat that as failure instead of mapping the likely route.

Before the screen ends, identify which figure, method, dataset, clinical claim, mechanism, or model-system constraint would make a specialty Nature title cleaner. That map helps if the screen ends in reject-with-transfer rather than referee assignment.

Check whether your Nature transfer plan is screen-ready→

This guide tells you what Nature editors look for while the manuscript is being screened. The review tells you whether your paper passes that screen before the decision arrives. We have reviewed manuscripts targeting Nature and peer Nature Portfolio venues; the named patterns above are the same ones handling editors flag during the desk screen. 60-day money-back guarantee. Your manuscript is not used for model training, and access is limited to the review workflow.

This page helps Nature authors turn a static With Editor label into a concrete screening-window plan: check the broad-significance claim, Reporting Summary, source data, Methods, figure logic, Supplementary Information, and likely Nature-family fallback before the handling editor finishes the screen.

Of the manuscripts our team reviewed for this Nature status-page pattern sample, the strongest screening-window signal was whether the abstract, first figure, and Reporting Summary made broad significance and technical reproducibility visible before the handling editor had to reconstruct the claim from the supplementary files.

This page was created from:

• Nature's public editorial criteria and processes at Nature Portfolio author guidance

• Springer Nature author support documentation (editorial process after submission) and Nature's editorial criteria (editor-sought advice from scientific advisors and editorial colleagues)

• SciRev community-reported transit data on Nature

• a live review of public search results for "nature with editor" queries in June 2026 (where the ranking results were generic cross-journal explainers from author-services sites rather than Nature-specific desk-screen timing)

• Manusights pre-submission review experience with Nature-targeted manuscripts.

Source limitations: public Nature guidance can confirm the Manuscript Tracking System route, the editor-led triage, the desk-screen criteria, and broad timing expectations, but it cannot reveal the private screening state inside a specific manuscript record. In practical author terms, the useful task during the "With Editor" wait is to connect the screen to broad-significance framing, Reporting Summary completeness, source data, Methods, and Nature-family transfer planning.

For the Springer Nature broad-significance landscape beyond Nature, see Nature Communications (broader scope, Nature Portfolio transfer-friendly), specialty Nature titles (Nature Methods, Nature Medicine, Nature Genetics), Communications journals (open-access alternative), and external general-science alternatives (Science, Cell, PNAS). Once your paper clears the "With Editor" screen, the next status is reviewer assignment; the Nature Under Review guide covers what happens once 2 to 3 reviewers are invited.

Every manuscript passes through editorial triage before a referee ever sees it, and the "With Editor" stage is exactly that triage. Preparing a response template that addresses both broad-significance and technical-rigor perspectives can speed revision rounds once the screen passes, given that Nature's median from submission to acceptance is 321 days.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Nature broad-significance bar before the editorial screen, our Nature pre-submission diagnostic flags the framing and reporting-checklist weaknesses most likely to stall a paper at "With Editor."